Keith Beardsley2015-03-03T15:44:54-05:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=keith-beardsleyCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Keith BeardsleyGood old fashioned elbow grease.Targeting Mulcair?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.53477142014-05-18T22:37:43-04:002014-07-18T05:59:04-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/
Was the purpose to drag Mulcair down into the mud of parliamentary nastiness? They probably accomplished a bit of that as the Conservatives were the ones who chose to vote to bring Mulcair to committee so they could have the opportunity to rattle his cage. They did manage to make Mulcair look like every other Prime Minister I have seen since the 1980s. Mulcair's ducking and weaving when answering questions was a great reminder of our everyday Question Period format and the nasty political battles that take place within the Chamber. The Conservatives didn't have to enhance their reputation on that front but they did take Mulcair down a notch.

Was the point to make Mulcair look like many other politicians with dirty baggage? They might have accomplished a bit on that point and I am sure Justin Trudeau thanked them for their efforts. While his side got in their own attack points during the meeting, it was worthwhile for them as the Liberals benefit from any tearing down of Mulcair.

Was the Conservative strategy to get even for Mulcair's grilling of the Prime Minister in Question Period over the senate scandal? Probably.

So at a time when the two opposition leaders (Mulcair and Trudeau) are personally looking good in the polls the Conservatives chose to take on the one who is best able to draw off support from Justin Trudeau and the Liberals. That is certainly an interesting strategy. If you are a swing NDP/Liberal voter and Mulcair no longer looks as good in your eyes where to you put your vote in order to stop Harper and the Conservatives? Probably with the new guy on the block whose spin is that he is offering a new way of doing politics.

I am sure Conservative MPs in ridings where their win was by a small margin over their Liberal opponents appreciated the helping hand their own party gave the Liberals and Trudeau.

Yes, it is an interesting strategy -- short-term gain for long term pain. Just who thought this one through?]]>What is the Point of These Supreme Court Attacks?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.52871342014-05-08T12:30:05-04:002014-07-08T05:59:03-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/
One would think that in the lead up to a possible election that this would be part of a larger strategy to gain votes or at the very least offer a position that appealed to a large number of voters and gained additional support for the government. These attacks do none of that.

Any time you take the step of going to court you know that you are going to get a win or lose verdict. Politically you should prepare for both types of decisions in advance of the decision coming down. The Senate referral to the Court was risky and clearly the government knew in advance that the Nadon appointment might present problems or they would not have gone outside of the Justice Department to get "expert" opinion prior to announcing his appointment.

Attacks on the Chief justice get you nowhere. Who do the Conservatives think the population will believe- a politician or a highly respected judge? Except for hard core followers most people will support the Court.

Attacks on the Chief Justice i.e. the Supreme Court will play well to some followers. Unease with so called activist judges was common in pre-merger days mainly in the ranks of the Reform Party and later the Canadian Alliance. Is this a throwback to those days?

So what does this strategy do other than shore up support from followers that you already have?
Does it make Justin Trudeau look bad? Hardly, they look like a bunch of angry and sore losers while he is given the opportunity to appear logical and well mannered. This gives a win to the Liberals.

Does this strategy box Tom Mulcair in? Hardly, he gets to attack the government daily with reasoned questions that the government has to either duck completely or push back with more negatives. That is a win for the NDP.

Besides venting and looking like a sore loser this strategy doesn't do much other than shore up support from people who already vote for you, so what is the point?]]>The Myth of Open Nomination Conteststag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.50710382014-04-01T17:27:49-04:002014-06-01T05:59:01-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/
Really? This is politics, just how gullible do they think the public is? I know everyone preaches it, but how realistic is it to expect there to be a true 100 per cent open nomination contest?

It would be quite rare at the riding level for the executive not to have a favoured candidate. To begin with, members of the executive carry out the candidate search and the executive usually has a sense as to who they think will make the best candidate. How cooperative they are with other potential candidates can encourage or discourage people from seeking the nomination.

Even if the executive has a preference, there is nothing to say that party headquarters won't "suggest" they interview someone else. Smart executive members, especially if they have political ambitions of their own, listen closely to those suggestions from on high.

In a few cases, there will be only one person stepping forward (not unusual for the Conservatives in Quebec), but when a nomination is challenged all sorts of factors come into play.

Anyone who has been involved in the nomination process knows that this takes a huge effort. How long the party allows for the sign up of new member's tilts the selection one way or another. If party headquarters picks a short few weeks, it will favour an incumbent. Even lead time given to announce the nomination date plays a part in who can get organized, sign up new members or prepare for the nomination.

If we look back over the last year or so we have examples at both the provincial and federal level of either candidates deposit cheques arriving to late, deadlines that were supposedly missed, headquarters staff directly supporting one candidate over another or even disallowing a candidate because of their spouse. But it doesn't end there.

There will also be star candidates that the party wants to run in a particular riding. And yes the parties will guarantee the media and public that it will be an open contest. Yet some potential challengers will be told that perhaps the party can find them a better riding for them to run in so the star can run in that particular riding. Another way it could happen is for the party to announce the star candidate will seek a particular seat and then call the nomination meeting as quickly as possible, catching potential challengers off guard and unable to organize or sign up new members in time.

Sitting MPs usually dread open nomination meetings. They often seek assurance that the party will help them win which publicly of course the party can't do. And why should they? If you have held your seat for four years or more and you can't win a nomination battle you have a big problem. Nor should there be any need for a leader's office to offer or suggest a template for the MP to use that suggests that MP is hardworking, a valued member of the caucus etc. That in itself looks a lot like interference in an "open" nomination process.

The nomination process is a time to bring in new blood to the party, it's a time to get rid of some of the dead wood and it helps to keep sitting MPs engaged both in Ottawa and more importantly with their riding and the people who elected them. When the process is over, party leaders will have lost some of their key people and find some they aren't too keen on representing the party in the next election. That is the way it has been for decades.

Nomination battles are fascinating to watch and if you are part of one it is an exhilarating experience. Everyone always hopes that each individual seeking nomination will be treated fairly and in the same manner as all other candidates. You want to know that if you won or lost it was done fairly. The hype of "open nominations" will continue as all parties try to prove to the media and public that there is a new way of doing business now. Let us see how long it takes before we start hearing complaints from potential challengers about how they were dealt with during this "open" process. I will suggest it will be sooner rather than later.

ALSO ON HUFFPOST:

]]>Rules For Using the Government Jet Seem Up in the Airtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.50630762014-03-31T17:38:37-04:002014-05-31T05:59:02-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/
At that time as head of the Conservative research group looking into Liberal misdeeds, we would often check the Challenger jet flight logs. Most of the time it was pretty boring stuff, but from time to time a few gems would show up such as holiday trips for either Prime Ministers Chretien or Martin. We even found one ministerial trip to Salt Lake City during the winter Olympics -- naturally to watch a hockey game. But for the most part it was pretty routine stuff.

At that time cautionary notes that one day we might be in power and have to live with the results of our attacks on the Liberals went unheeded. It was simply too much fun to unleash our attack dogs in Question Period.

Upon assuming office in February 2006 realty set in. Other than very general guidelines on when government jets could be used, things were pretty well left open to interpretation.

At that time, newly minted Prime Minister Harper recognized the pitfalls the use of government aircraft could create. He was insistent that they only be used for government business. The wrinkle in all of this though was the insistence of the RCMP that for security reasons the Prime Minister must use government aircraft at all times -- even for private business, vacations etc.

This presented us with the problem of how does one account for trips that are a mixture of events, i.e.: government business, political events or personal time. Back in 2006, we couldn't find any guidelines as to how to calculate or pay back the government for mixed use trips. In the end the decision was to look at what would a comparable commercial flight cost for the same route and destination. If the Prime Minister was not restricted to the use of the government jet, those would be the real costs he and staff would have to pay. It was far from perfect but established the principle that on any flight any non-government business had to be accounted for and that portion paid back to the Government of Canada.

When a trip was being planned, great care was taken in ensuring that we knew what percentage of that trip was government business, political or personal. We would spend many hours counting the mileage of flights and figuring out which parts had to be reimbursed. Costs were calculated as above and a cheque was required as soon as possible. I might add that Harper was insistent that it be paid back quickly and would often ask in the senior staff meetings if we had received the cheque from the party.

Who could use a jet and under what conditions was very tightly controlled. Ministers wanting the convenience of government aircraft use were told in no uncertain terms to take a commercial flight.

When looking at the present issue, if non-governmental staff, friends etc. are on the flight, then at the very least they should be paying their own way, unless the Conservative Party wants to pick up their tab and aircraft should not be used for purely political events. It is hard to believe that a Prime Minister flying to any part of Canada cannot find government events or meetings to coincide with a trip.

There is no easy solution to this problem and simplistic solutions that all costs are paid for at full value don't work either. It will be fun to watch how the NDP puts themselves in the same political straightjacket that the Conservatives did when they were in opposition. Of course the one advantage the NDP has it that they don't have to worry about being in government any time soon.

ALSO ON HUFFPOST:

]]>Don't Let Truth Be a Casualty of Democracytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.49059072014-03-05T16:22:51-05:002014-05-05T05:59:01-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/
Recently, House of Commons Speaker Andrew Sheer ruled on an NDP motion which had accused Conservative MP Brad Butt of misleading the House with comments Butt made about witnessing voter fraud in the last election. Speaker Scheer in his ruling stated, "From what the member for Mississauga-Streetsville and other members have revealed, it is quite clear that the House has been provided with two narratives that are contradictory statements."

When an MP or minister stands and addresses the House of Commons, they are not just speaking to other elected members, but to the nation as a whole. It is a huge responsibility they carry on their shoulders and that is one reason everything they say is recorded in Hansard. The words our MPs speak are important and they do matter.

There will always be disputes over the interpretation of what someone said or the facts used in an argument or debate. Going all the way back to Confederation, members have contorted themselves into all sorts of verbal positions to avoid misleading the House. In this case though Speaker Scheer was pretty clear about how he viewed this issue when he stated "At the same time, the fact remains that the House continues to be seized with completely contradictory statements."

The only person who knows if the member for Mississauga-Streetsville simply got carried away the first time he stood to reference the issue or if he deliberately mislead the House is the member himself. In this case the member has apologized to the House.

Whether or not his apology was sufficient, this episode should serve as a warning to all of our elected members whether they sit on the government side or in opposition.

The public may disagree with what you say, we may argue about the facts you tell us or how you interpret them, but remember that your words will still be there for others to see and read decades from now. We are listening, so at least tell us the truth. Is that too much to ask?

ALSO ON HUFFPOST:

]]>Spending Scandal: Canadians Won't Abide $72,000 in Moving Expensestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.48088622014-02-18T12:11:24-05:002014-04-20T05:59:01-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/
Both the Senate scandal and this latest one have one thing in common; they involve amounts of money and expenses that everyone can understand. Virtually every adult has had to pay for moving expenses at one time or another and when the dollar amount exceeds the yearly income of many Canadians, they notice.

This is not to say that either general did anything wrong when they submitted their claim for reimbursement. As retired General and Trudeau advisor Andrew Leslie explained, he played by the rules. Yes he did and the rules that are in place allowed him to claim the expenses from his last move. As far as I know, there is no distance stipulation covered by those rules. The same rules applied for General Menard; although asking taxpayers to pay for a move from Canada to the United Arab Emirates after being court-martialed does make them shake their heads.

Like a lot of the Senate rules governing allowable expense claims, the military move policy does need a review, perhaps something as simple as a cap on the maximum allowable claim. Let us not forget though that while these two cases highlight the moves of two very senior former officers, the vast majority of these "last moves" involve the rank and file, the backbone of our armed forces. Let's not punish them to make an example of two senior officers, one of whom happens to be a Liberal advisor and potential Liberal candidate.

A lot of the online discussion has focused on the political attacks that have come in on Andrew Leslie and the appropriateness of those attacks. Welcome to politics 101. Once you enter the political arena the gloves come off and you become a legitimate political target. What you say, what you have done and yes what you claimed can easily make you a target. Just ask Senators Duffy and Wallin, it doesn't matter who you were or what you have contributed over the years. Everyone is fair game in the political world.

There are many examples of outstanding citizens who have chosen to enter federal politics from a variety of backgrounds and no party spared them from attacks. Claude Wagner (a former judge), Robert Stanfield (a former premier), Lester Pearson (a distinguished diplomat) and Paul Martin (a distinguished businessman) all had outstanding backgrounds of service to their province or country. More recently we have seen the attacks from the Liberals and NDP on Chuck Strahl, one of the most decent and highly respected individuals to serve any government. Yet their years of distinguished service didn't spare any of them from political scrutiny and attack, nor will Leslie be spared this time.

There is an expression that "perception is reality in politics" and in the case of the two generals the perception is that their moving expenses are excessive. Fair criticism or not, these expenses don't look good to the average voter and with politics being the rough sport that it is it's no surprise that the general's expense claims have been put under the microscope and become part of the political debate as we run up to the next election. Welcome to Politics 101.]]>Did Trudeau Clean Up the Senate or Make a Bigger Mess?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.46883442014-01-29T12:31:39-05:002014-03-31T05:59:01-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/removing Liberal senators from the Liberal caucus, thereby limiting the caucus to elected members of parliament. For the most part I don't think the public cares one way or another how a senator labels themselves, nor after the Senate scandal do they have much use for any of them.

However, it was a bold move on Trudeau's part and certainly raised his profile in the media for the next few days. But there is one immediate question that comes to mind, why now? Why not make the announcement at the upcoming Liberal policy convention in March?

Why the sudden rush to get this announcement out the door now? If it was a well thought out political maneuver, surely the Liberal brain trust would have anticipated the need to make changes to the party constitution and submitted those proposals in time to be voted on in March.

It has been done in such a rush that no one can figure out how the upper house will work without an official opposition. No one can figure out how the budget will be divided or offices such as the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate staffed. How will Senate committees function? They are made up of representatives based on their party's numbers in the Senate.

Is this a pre-emptive move on Trudeau's part in anticipation of some very negative findings by the Auditor General who is presently auditing a number of senator's expenses? Certainly this move would cover him from having to throw senators out of the caucus just prior to an election. Eventually the dust will settle and the real reason for this move will become evident, but for now Trudeau is in the limelight and he will have the Conservatives scrambling and perhaps the NDP as well.

On a positive note, perhaps the chamber of sober second thought will return to that role and we will see a decrease in the partisanship we have seen there in recent years. What a switch to have senators study legislation strictly on its merits without support being based solely on which party appointed them.

It will also be interesting to see how the Conservative Senate caucus responds. How many of them will decide they would now like to become independent like their former Liberal colleagues? If enough Conservative senators decide to sit as independents it will change the dynamics of getting legislation through the upper house. The government side would be faced with convincing individual senators of the merits of legislation, rather than being able to demand loyalty to pass legislation.

Trudeau has started the ball rolling downhill and it will gather speed over the next few weeks and months, but outside of the immediate publicity and time spent in front of the cameras, how well was this move thought out? What are the long term repercussions, both good and bad? The truth is no one including Trudeau knows and we will only find that out down the road and closer to the next election.

ALSO ON HUFFPOST:

]]>Why Tory MPs Could Be Looking For Worktag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.46160042014-01-17T12:28:42-05:002014-03-19T05:59:02-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/Brian Jean's announcement that he is leaving the federal political scene this month. You have to wonder if Jean's (along with Ted Menzies and Merv Tweed) decision is but one of potentially many that we will see in the coming months.

MPs retire for a number of reasons and it doesn't matter to which party they belong. Some simply don't want to face another grueling election battle or open nomination fight. Others tire of the long hours, the travel time and separation from their families. Others become disillusioned with their role in parliament which is more often than not the opposite of what they envisioned when they first ran for office.

Other MPs feel that they have not received sufficient recognition for their work on behalf of the party or leader. They envy those who have become committee chairs or Parliamentary Secretaries or advanced to the pinnacle of political success and become a cabinet minister. For others ego trumps ability. Whatever the reason, over time, especially when there is a long break from the Hill, they have time to reflect on their future.

With the polls not being particularly helpful for the Conservatives right now, it is to be expected that most announcements will come from that side. After all if you are a Liberal MP you might be forgiven for thinking it best to wait things out until after the next election -- the temptation of being in power is hard to resist.

NDP MPs might have felt the same way after Layton's success in bringing them Official Opposition status. But again the polls have not been kind to them.

With roughly two years to go until the next election, there is plenty of time to do some quiet job hunting. If under pensionable age, it certainly is something that they will have to consider.

A quick scan down the Conservative list shows some 90 MPs with the required six years of service and another 35 who will reach six years' service in October 2014. Even without taking their pensionable age into consideration, there is no doubt that a number of MPs will be using this break period to contemplate their future.

When opportunity knocks some MPs will decide enough is enough. No one can predict how many, but it is pretty safe to say we haven't seen the last member of the Conservative caucus decide that their future is not in Ottawa, but instead it lies in some other part of the country in a different line of work.

To stay or go, that is the question.

]]>How Can 2014's Question Period Top This Year's? Let's Wait and Seetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.44409112013-12-13T17:41:42-05:002014-02-12T05:59:01-05:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/
Other than the Senate scandal, Ottawa politics probably won't receive much discussion over the next few weeks as Canadians pay attention to what is important, namely family and friends.

Looking back over the last few months, we have seen some indication that political junkies will get their fill as we begin to move into the pre-election stage in our political cycle.

Justin Trudeau has done well and he is clearly improving both in the House and outside. He has demonstrated that he has staying power. I am reminded of Brian Mulroney's comment (while the Conservatives were running ads belittling Trudeau) that "Anybody who ... treats Justin Trudeau with scorn or derision or underestimates him, does so at his own peril." That was a very astute observation.

Right now the focus is on Trudeau's attendance in Question Period. Really, do Canadians care if he is up on his feet slinging mud every day? I doubt it. As the Leader of the third party, he and his party get so few questions that his time is better spent doing fundraising, organizing and interviewing potential candidates. Showing up a couple of days a week will still get him some television coverage but also separates him from much of the nastiness we see every day.

If you want to be the anti-Harper you don't need to be on the attack in Question Period. Let your designated attack dogs do that and keep your hands clean. Trudeau isn't without flaws and he is still vulnerable on a number of fronts, but he will make the next election very interesting.

We have also seen Thomas Mulcair begin to shine. The Senate scandal has been the gift that keeps on giving for him. He finally tossed away that silly little lectern that he used to read his questions from and which left him looking far too pompous. We now see a man who knows his files and who has become an excellent questioner without reading his notes- something that I had been suggestion he do since elected leader. He still comes across as too angry all the time, which is something he will have to work on. He also needs to designate one or two attack dogs to help him out. It will be fun watching Mulcair and Trudeau with very opposite styles, fight for the anti-Harper vote.

The Prime Minister has survived a little battered and bruised but for now still in the game. Only the hardcore partisans can think that he hasn't been damaged by the Senate scandal. He has been, but providing no new information emerges that links him directly to the scandal he still has time to recover. The last cabinet shuffle and prorogation were to help restart the Conservative agenda, but as usual, the whiff of scandal can derail even the best made plans.

He does need to think about who stands in for him in Question Period. Paul Calandra started off well in that slot, but quickly deteriorated to the point of embarrassment with his answers to legitimate questions.

In the coming months, Harper will have plenty of caucus issues to deal with. Quite a few members of the Conservative caucus have qualified for their pension. How many knowing that the next election will be a tough one will decide it's time to go? That is the unknown question and once an MP decides to leave, the question becomes when to leave and what is their legacy going to be in the history books? It will be interesting to see which MPs begin introducing Private Members Bills that might ensure their legacy, but not mesh with the views of the Prime Minister.

Add in Michael Chong's Private Members Bill suggesting ways to reduce a leader's powers, the first rumours of a change in leadership and a large number of backbenchers facing the decision of whether to run again or pack it in and Harper will have his hands full managing his caucus while dealing with the Trudeau-Mulcair threat.

2013 is almost done. Canadians and their political leaders will hopefully find the time to enjoy their families. Maybe they will return in a better frame of mind in the New Year, but then again do we really think that is possible?]]>Chong's Reform Bill Can't Be Any Worse Than Parliament Is Nowtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.44005972013-12-08T23:20:28-05:002014-02-07T05:59:02-05:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/
Almost everyone agrees that our MPs (in all parties) need to reassert themselves and become the people we elected them to be. They are the representatives of the people and while we all recognize that there will always be a certain degree of party discipline involved, we still expect them to represent us. What we don't intentionally elect is "a trained seal." Unfortunately all too often that is what we get.

Individuals run for office out of a sense of duty and public service and with a desire to make Canada a better place to live. It doesn't matter which party they represent, their political platform may be different, but MPs are all there for the same reason. Unfortunately once elected those aspirations get buried under the controlling influence of the various leaders' offices.

If we look at a couple of the more controversial clauses we should ask ourselves are they worse than the status quo. For instance, is it fair to allow 15 per cent of the caucus to trigger a leadership review process? I would suggest why not?

As it stands right now, forcing a leader out is a messy process. If your caucus is so small that 15 per cent is hazardous to the survival of the leader, ask why that caucus is so small in the first place. Did the leader blow an election? Was the election team the leader put in place at fault? Was the platform the leader signed off on not accepted by the public? The buck has to stop at the top.

How many of those worried about this new review process have lived through or participated in the Chretien-Martin wars, the Clark-Mulroney wars or the ousting of Diefenbaker. What about the rebellion against Stockwell Day, when every few days a veteran MP would step out of the party to sit with what became known as the Democratic Reform MPs. Getting rid of a leader when they aren't inclined to go is a brutal undertaking. It is also something that MPs never take lightly and the potential repercussions on the party's electoral hopes and damage to the party brand are things every MP will be taking into consideration.

Nomination contests are another issue that raises a red flag for many. What happens if a special interest group packs a meeting and nominates someone who doesn't reflect the views of the leader? Should the leader have the right to prevent that person from running? Does the democratic process start at the bottom or must we rely on the leader and his or her staff (in the political bubble that is Ottawa) to decide who is best to represent that riding?

If Chong's bill is accepted we will certainly see more of such candidates. It is not always a bad thing. Think back to Joe Clark's second leadership run and the attempt by the Orchard supporters to gain control of the old PC Party. It highlighted policy issues, and it got many PCs out the door to vote for both the leadership process and the subsequent election nomination meetings. In the electoral cycle, any party that sees too many single issue candidates elected will pay a price down the road when a subsequent election is called or for that matter any election when the views of the single issue candidates are exposed and they are at variance to the majority of the general population.

While it shouldn't be left in the hands of the leader and his unelected cohort of staffers to decide nominations, this is an area where MPs have an opportunity to make input as they know from first-hand experience what the process is like now and they should be able to suggest workable solutions. Even if the bill is left as is, it is still better than what we have now where all power is left in Ottawa and nothing in the riding.

Another issue is whether or not a leader should have the power to expel an MP from caucus or readmit them to caucus. Members of caucus are the representatives of the party, the Prime Minister or the party leader is simply one of many elected MPs. The caucus can take care of itself. All MPs know when an individual does not measure up to the expected standards of the caucus. MPs should not be removed simply because they don't get along with the leader or because they don't toe the leader's line on all issues. Caucus is perfectly able to decide when someone is damaging their brand and their electoral future. The collective will is more important than that of one person.

One issue that I would have liked to see included in his bill was interference by the party leadership in Private Members Bills or PMBs. It is a sad day for our MPs when the Liberals have to announce that they are allowing a free vote on Chong's PMB and everyone is wondering if the Conservatives will whip their vote. PMBs were the last refuge for all MPs to bring forward bills on subjects that are important to them. It would have been nice to see something in Chong's bill that stated all PMBs were free votes.

Yes, we would see some controversial bills brought forward, but better that than a bunch of MPs who have to wait to be told how to vote on business that is reserved for them. If nothing else it would force voters and the media to ask the tough questions of every candidate running for office, so that the voter knows exactly who they are sending to Ottawa and their position on our most controversial issues.

Chong's bill has lots of potential, now let us see if MPs from all of our parties have the guts to seize the moment and pass it.

ALSO ON HUFFPOST:

]]>How Conservative Scandal Tainted the Byelectiontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.43436842013-11-26T12:31:35-05:002014-01-26T05:59:02-05:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/
However, it takes some of the shine off of your team's win if your party sees a significant drop in the margin of victory in two of your party's strongholds. Most observers point to the senate scandal as the reason for the drop and certainly the Conservative caucus feels that way.

There will be quite a few Conservative MPs looking at the drop in their party's share of the vote in both Conservative strongholds in Manitoba and wondering what their own fate will be in the next election. The unease in caucus is very noticeable, as it is amongst staff.

Their unhappiness with PMO has been known for some time and goes back far beyond the calling of these four by-elections, but this is the first time there have been whispers aimed at the Prime Minister and his handling of the senate issue. He is probably safe for now, but things could turn if more details emerge in the next few weeks.

The Conservative caucus is not a group that panics over every little issue. Many are veteran MPs and even the class of 2011 has a couple of years under their belt. If they are worried and starting to point fingers and lay blame, it is because they are hearing a lot of grief from their constituents. Conservative MPs will be looking at last night's results and calculating their own chances of success or failure in 2015.

We may even see more veteran MPs or ministers decide that it's time to retire rather than stay on to fight what is shaping up to be a brutal election battle. For those that decide to stay on, the good news for them is that there is still time to turn things around before the next election, although time is rapidly slipping away.

It will be a very interesting Conservative caucus meeting on Wednesday, not just for what is raised in the open, but also for what will be whispered one on one.

]]>It Ain't Over: Why the Suspended Senators Won't Go Gentlytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.42252462013-11-06T12:56:03-05:002013-11-06T12:56:05-05:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/
If you listen to the short pants brigade, all is good in their political world right now -- the Senate scandal is behind them. The infamous three are gone, destined to become a footnote in our history books. Those pesky opposition MPs will ask questions for a while longer, but even they will lose interest. The trouble with that analysis is that most of the short pants haven't spent time in opposition. They can't imagine all the potential twists and turns left in this saga. The senators are suspended without pay for two years, a.k.a. November 2015, just after the date for the next election. In a perfect world, the Conservatives won't have to deal with them until then.

But this isn't a perfect world, it is a political world and in politics it always pays to anticipate where things might lead.

They have banished three senators, two of whom are master story tellers and media savvy. Two household names who have nothing to lose by fighting back. How many binders of emails and documents do they have in their possession? How many will find their way into the public domain?

There are former and present political staff who know the inside story. When will they feel the need to protect their own reputation? What documents do they have?

There is an on-going RCMP investigation. There may or may not be charges, but there will be lots of allegations of wrong doing and even if individuals are not charged by the RCMP, that in itself will be a story that will remind the public about the Senate scandal.

Outside of potential criminal proceedings, they have now added possible civil lawsuits over the suspension of the three senators. How long do you think it will take for a lawyer who really dislikes the Prime Minister's politics to get involved?

Any trial (civil or criminal) will involve witnesses testifying under oath and almost certainly a subpoena for the Prime Minister to appear. Whether he does or not, all of this will provoke a firestorm of media coverage during the lead up to the next election.

Let us not forget the Auditor General. Media reports suggest he will bring out somewhere between one and three audit reports into Senate expenses. Those audits won't be released over night, but over the next year or so- just as the party kicks into high gear in their 2015 election preparation.

This story will not fade away. For the opposition parties this is the gift that will keep on giving, right up to the 2015 election.

]]>Senate Scandal: Harper Must Pause, Reflect and Move Forwardtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.41744232013-10-29T16:32:34-04:002013-12-29T05:12:01-05:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/
With the Senate scandal continuing unabated, there is tremendous wear and tear on everyone involved. These scandals tend to take over your entire day, you become buried in the muck, either throwing it or slipping deeper into it. A political crisis of this magnitude wears staff down and it always impacts on the man at the top.

Every now and then you have to step back, step away from it and re-evaluate your position; otherwise you develop a bunker mentality with a tunnel vision that focuses on winning small points instead of the big picture. When that happens it's time to pause and reflect before committing yourself to the next action.

At this late stage in the game, the one organization that should have been fully prepared for anything that Duffy would throw at them should have been the Prime Minister's Office. If they weren't then that is another issue for the Prime Minister to deal with, but I assume they were. By now those in charge should have gathered all of the relevant information, emails, copies of memos etc. They should know who knew what, when, what actions were taken by individuals etc. They should have been prepared for anything that Duffy could lob at them. They should also know what else he has in reserve and he certainly hinted that he had more to release.

It gets lonely at the top, whose advice do you listen to? Who do you trust? Who do you have on staff that can set aside blind partisanship and speak truth to power? The distractions are innumerable, even Finance Minister Flaherty referenced the impact the scandal was having on the economic agenda.

It is time for the Prime Minister to pause and reflect as well. Is his current course of action the best one? Are there alternatives? Is he well briefed? Does he have the right staff in place to handle the crisis? Are there people he can seek advice from outside of government, former Prime Minister's, ministers etc.?

In the short term this scandal isn't going away, for now it will chip away at the strength of the Conservative brand that Harper has built up since 2003. However, the Prime Minister has to keep his focus on the long game. The three senators are today's issue; he has to focus on 2015. He has to pause and reflect then take action and move forward.

]]>When Will This Senate Scandal Gong Show End?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.41698822013-10-28T12:24:41-04:002014-01-23T18:58:21-05:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/
No one escapes the blame on this one. Conservatives can't even agree if suspending the three senators without due process is the correct way to go. We have Conservative senators and Conservative MPs speaking out against the pending motions -- something that is generally unheard of in this tightly controlled government. Did the government leader in the Senate not check with his colleagues first to see if he had enough votes to get this through? Really this is amateur hour.

Why on earth would Carignan even talk a deal with Brazeau? Unless of course he was authorized to do so by PMO and even that would be questionable.

There is no doubt that the Prime Minister would be furious about questionable expenses on the part of senators, as he would be if such questions arose about a minister's expenses. Can anyone remember that $16 glass of orange juice? He would certainly demand that everything be paid back as he has insisted in the past when ministers stepped over the line. On that point he has never varied. Whether or not suspending the senators over allegations and before they have been charged or convicted is the right way to go will be judged not only by the Conservative caucus in the Senate, but by the House caucus and Canadians in general. And on that note can anyone remember the last time a Senate issue became dinner table conversation the way this issue has?

Let us not forget Justin Trudeau. There he is calling for the Prime Minister to testify under oath about a political issue. Exactly how of course he fails to mention, it's just a nice sound bite for the nightly news.

The most likely way would be to have the PM appear before a committee and be sworn in. This comes from the same Mr. Trudeau, who in the next breath wonders if the move to suspend senators would set a precedent. Did he not think about the precedent that would be set if sitting Prime Ministers could be hauled before a committee under oath whenever the opposition parties so wished?

If one believes the polls, there is a vague possibility that Trudeau could win a minority government. Wouldn't the Conservatives and NDP have a field day hauling him before any number of committees to testify under oath?

Speaking of having sitting Prime Ministers testify under oath at committee, wouldn't the Conservatives have enjoyed having both Prime Minister Chretien and Paul Martin before any number of committees under oath and not just linked to the Gomery Inquiry, but also Shawinigate, the Billion Dollar Boondoggle and the list goes on. Be careful what you wish for Justin, things tend to bite former opposition leaders where it hurts after you get into power.

The only question remaining is who has the hook to end this gong show?

]]>A Throne Speech to Forgettag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.41279802013-10-19T09:50:47-04:002013-12-19T05:12:01-05:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/
Throne Speeches do signal the government's intentions in a variety of areas. I suspect though that the public has become far too cynical about our federal politicians and the way Ottawa works to believe that all of those items will actually be accomplished. Most people will shrug their shoulders and adopt a wait and see attitude.

Fortunately for the Tories, the general public might recall one item from Harper's latest version, namely the unbundling of cable channels. That is an item that most of us can relate to and we all have opinions on that subject. However the rest of the speech was a lot of blah, blah, blah. Was it the long talked about reset button? Probably not. Will it bury the Senate scandal and move it off the political agenda and out of the public's mind? Definitely not.

The Senate scandal, which is something the public does care about, received just a vague reference with a couple of lines about the status quo being unacceptable and the Senate needing to be reformed or it should vanish.

That is not enough to take the Senate scandal, which the government continues to wear on a daily basis, off of the front pages. Nor will the Conservatives' unusual move to have the Senate vote to suspend senators without pay over allegations, not convictions of wrong doing, do that for them. That move, which in the case of Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy is taking action based only on allegations that have yet to be proven in court, will keep the issue front and centre. It doesn't serve to bullet-proof the government on this issue in parliament, the media or the eyes of the general public. With reports that there might be law suits over this issue, the scandal will stay right where it is now, front and centre in the public's mind.

I don't know about the rest of the public, but I wish we had seen a line in the speech that said the government will move to hold a referendum on the future of the Senate. A simple keep it or ditch it vote.